E 



mm 




Glass 
Book 



DEFENCE 

OF THE CHARACTER AND PRINCIPLES 

OF 

MR. JEFFERSON; 



BEING AN 



ADDRESS 

DELIVERED AT WEYMOUTH, MASS 

AT THE REQ.UEST OF THE 

ANTI- MA SONIC AND DEMOCRATIC CITIZENS 

OF THAT PLACE, 

On the 4th of July, 1836. 



BY ALEXANDER II. EVERETT. 

ii 



BOSTON : 

BEALS AND GREENE. 

1836. 






Published at the request of the Committee of Arrangements. 



PREFACE. 



It may appear superfluous to say any thing in defence of a 
character so well established as that of Mr. Jefferson, and would 
be so in most other parts of the country. Even here the promi- 
nent men of the Federal party professed some years ago to have 
changed their opinion about him, and joined with apparent cor- 
diality in the general tribute of respect that was paid to his memo- 
ry at the time of his death. Within two or three years, however, 
an attempt has been made in this and some other parts of the 
Union to revive the former feeling. Several literary works of 
some pretension, have been published for this purpose, and sus- 
tained by pamphlets and a portion of the periodical press. It is 
believed that the results of this crusade have not corresponded with 
the expectations of the movers. There can be no doubt that it has 
been one among the causes of the vigorous reaction in favor of 
old-fashioned Democracy that is now going on in this Common- 
wealth. This renewal of the attack may seem to justify, and 



IV 

perhaps to require, a few words in the way of defence. The 
train of thought in the body of the following Address, and in 
some paragraphs the language, are taken with modifications from 
an article on the Origin and Character of Parlies in this country, 
which was contributed by the author to the North American Re- 
view for July, 1834. To this and to a subsequent article on 
the Character of Mr. Jefferson, in the same journal for January, 
1835, the reader is referred for a fuller development of the 
subject, than could be admitted within the usual limits of an 
occasional address. 

.Yen-ton, July 15, 1836. 



ADDRESS. 



We are assembled, fellow-citizens, to celebrate a 
day of happy omen, — a day, which the friend of lib- 
erty, under whatever circumstances it may find him, 
will never pass unregarded. It was remarked by 
Voltaire, that on the anniversary of the execution of 
Charles I. of England, every monarch in Europe 
rises with a sharp pain in his neck. For a similar 
reason, fellow-citizens, every lover of rational free- 
dom, — every individual who desires to promote, 
within the sphere of his activity, however humble, 
the great cause of human rights, — every man who 
deserves the name, — rises on the morning of the day 
we celebrate with a glow of pleasure at his heart. 
The sun shines more brightly than usual upon him : 
the air of heaven breathes upon his cheek with 
unwonted freshness : nature puts on to his view, as 
it were, a holiday dress : a buoyant cheerfulness 
diffuses itself through his frame, quickens every 



pulse, and seems, for the moment, to expand and 
enlarge his whole existence ; for he feels, in the 
language of the venerable patriarch of Independence 
on his death-bed, that it is ' a great and good day.' 

When the children of Israel, through the long and 
dreary hours of their national captivity, sate upon 
the banks of the rivers of Babylon, they hung their 
harps upon the willows, and wept as they remem- 
bered Zion. The patriot citizen of our favored 
country, when the day we celebrate overtakes him 
in its annual return in distant regions, — whether on 
the pathless ocean, — on the desert shore of some 
remote, uncultivated island, or in the bosom of the 
brilliant capitals of the old world, — turns his eyes 
alike with indifference from all that surrounds him, 
and exclaims, as he points to the home of liberty in 
the west, 'There is my country!' With what 
transport, then, should he not welcome the arrival 
of this auspicious day, when it finds him in the midst 
of his countrymen, — in the full enjoyment of the 
blessings which the great effort of the day was 
intended to secure, — with the stars of liberty beaming 
above his head, and her influence invigorating, 
renovating, cheering, sustaining, creating every 
thing around him ! 

To us, fellow-citizens, who are assembled as 
disciples of the political school of Mr. Jefferson, — as 
supporters of the supremacy of the laws, — the return 
of this anniversary brings with it emotions of deep 



and peculiar interest. When in the year 1801, soon 
after his accession to the Presidentship, the Mayor and 
Aldermen of the city of Washington waited upon Mr. 
Jefferson, for the purpose of inquiring on what day of 
the year he was born, — ' I acknowledge no other 
birth-day,' replied the great Apostle of liberty, — ' I 
acknowledge no other birth-clay but the anniversary 
of the declaration of my country's independence ! ' 
Well, indeed, might he regard it as a second birth- 
day, who was himself the author of the far-famed 
act that has given it importance ! In selecting a 
topic for the present address, from among the multi- 
tude that offer themselves to the mind upon the 
occasion, I have thought that some remarks, in de- 
fence of the character and principles of Mr. Jefferson, 
might not be entirely inappropriate to the day and 
the circumstances under which we are assembled. 
In most other parts of the country such remarks 
would be superfluous ; but in this Commonwealth 
the character of this illustrious statesman and patriot 
has not been universally and at all times correctly 
appreciated : his principles have not been always 
well understood. It belongs to us to endeavor to 
redeem them from unmerited obloquy ; and what 
occasion can be fitter for the purpose than the anni- 
versary of the day on which he performed the most 
important act of his life ? The brightest ornaments 
of our race have been in every age, as you are well 
aware, fellow-citizens, the objects of calumny. The 



great Scipio, whose name was for centuries the 
symbol at Rome of courage, patriotism, and every 
other public and private virtue, was accused in his 
day of corruption, and put on his defence before the 
people. Without condescending to notice the charge, 
he rose in the assembly and exclaimed, ' This day, 
twenty years ago, fellow-citizens, I planted your 
eagles on the walls of Carthage. Let us proceed at 
once to the temple, and offer a solemn thanksgiving 
to the gods for the victory.' Mr. Jefferson, when 
attacked, as he often was in his life-time, with about 
the same degree of justice, might well have con- 
tented himself with replying, ' On the Fourth of 
July, 1776, I reported in Congress the draft, 
written by myself, of the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence of the United States of America.' But his 
friends, fellow-citizens, have no disposition to evade 
inquiry. His long life, open from first to last to 
the public eye, courts investigation, and gains upon 
the strictest scrutiny. I shall introduce the sub- 
ject by a few more general remarks upon the origin 
and character of parties in this country. It is not 
my intention, fellow-citizens, to treat this subject 
in a manner that may tend to revive forgotten ani- 
mosities, or aggravate those that now exist. Such 
a course would be as foreign to my own disposition, 
as it is to the spirit of this joyful occasion. In de- 
fending the principles we approve, the patriots we 
honor, from undeserved censure, I shall treat with 



9 

uniform respect the character of their opponents, and 
shall scrupulously render to them the justice which 
their professed disciples so often refuse to us. 

I. The existence of parties in free governments is 
a matter of course, if not of absolute necessity. In 
a system which permits no expression of individual 
opinion, — where no voice is publicly heard but that of 
the sovereign, — parties are unknown. Any opposition 
to the will of the master is either suppressed at once 
by force or ends in revolution, and the merits of the 
question at issue can only be discussed in the form 
of actual civil war. Where a free expression of 
opinions is allowed, they will naturally be found to 
differ more or less upon every question of importance, 
and the people will form themselves into parties, as 
they happen to approve or disapprove the measures, 
which, for the time, most forcibly engage the public 
attention. It may be added, that most governments 
carry with them, in the very nature of their constitu- 
tions, the elements of permanent political divisions, 
which, though more or less active at different times, 
are never entirely suppressed, and constantly re- 
appear, perhaps with some variations of name or 
form, through the whole course of their history. 
Something of this kind, as I shall presently have 
occasion to remark, may be seen in the institutions 
of the United States. 

The only party division of any consequence which 
existed in the United States as colonies, and up to 
2 



10 

the close of the revolutionary war, was that of the 
supporters and the opponents of the royal prerogative, 
respectively distinguished by the familiar names of 
Whigs and Tories. The entire prostration of the 
latter by the war of independence, and the success 
of the new government erected by the former upon 
the ruins of the colonial system, extinguished this 
division, which left no traces in the condition and 
feelings of the people. The most obnoxious and 
prominent of the Tories retired to England : the rest 
acquiesced with cheerfulness in the new state of 
things. The Whigs remained in undisputed posses- 
sion of the field, and having now no common enemy 
to contend with, had opportunity and leisure, — as 
usually happens in similar cases, — to discover the 
differences of opinion among themselves. Within 
three or four years from the conclusion of peace, they 
were contending with each other throughout the 
country upon new grounds of controversy, with 
nearly as much zeal as they had before felt in their 
warfare with the Tories, though it was fortunately 
displayed in a more pacific shape. 

II. This new division, — the second in the order of 
time that has existed among us, and one of which the 
traces are not yet, and probably never will be, 
entirely effaced, — was that of the supporters and 
opponents of the present Federal Constitution, re- 
spectively known by the appellations of Federalists 
and Anti-federalists. It belongs to the class of those 



11 

already alluded to, which have their elements in the 
very nature of the governments of the communities 
in which they appear. Although our principal con- 
cern, on the present occasion, is with the parties 
that grew up after the adoption of the Constitution, 
yet as those which preceded had a good deal of in- 
fluence in determining the character and personal 
composition of the others, it may be proper to make 
them the subject of a few preliminary remarks. 

The parties afterwards known by the names of 
Federalists and Anti-federalists, made their appear- 
ance for the first time in the Convention which framed 
the Constitution. The object for which the meeting 
had been called, was to amend the existing articles 
of confederation ; but, when the members had assem- 
bled, it was found to be the opinion of a large number 
of them, constituting, as it appeared in the sequel, a 
majority of the whole, that it was more expedient to 
adopt and recommend to the people an entirely new 
draft, materially altering the fundamental principles 
of the former system. The prominent defect of the 
old confederation was the inefficiency and feebleness 
of the central power, and there was a general feeling 
that it ought to be strengthened, but in what way 
and to what extent this was to be done, were ques- 
tions upon which there was every variety of individ- 
ual opinion. Hamilton went so far as to propose 
that the Senate should be chosen for life, and that 
the President should appoint the Governors of States : 



12 

others would have left the relations between the 
States and the essential powers of Congress nearly 
as they stood before. The division, on general prin- 
ciples, was between those who were disposed to 
strengthen the General Government at the expense of 
the States on the one hand, and, on the other, those 
who wished to maintain the complete independence of 
the States at all hazards, and to give no authority 
to the General Government which was inconsistent 
with it. The Constitution, as finally adopted, was a 
sort of compromise between the two parties. It did 
not quite meet the views of the highest-toned sup- 
porters of Federal principles, and was still less 
palatable to the friends of entire State indepen- 
dence. It made, in fact, a very large encroachment 
on the independence of the States, by introducing 
the principle of a direct relation between the indi- 
vidual citizen and the central power for all federal 
purposes, or, in other words, by converting the States, 
for all the purposes to be effected by the Union, into 
one body politic. The Constitution, though drafted 
b) ... convention of delegates appointed by the State 
governments, was submitted for ratification and 
adoption, not to those governments, but to the indi- 
vidual citizens represented in conventions, and be- 
came, when adopted, a Social Compact, the parties 
to which formed themselves into one body politic, 
under a common government, for the purposes therein 
specified, and maintained for all others the existing 



13 

powers of the States. Though it did not, as I have 
said, precisely suit the views of some of the most 
decided supporters of Federal principles, and was, 
to a certain extent, a sort of compromise, it was 
viewed upon the whole as a Federal measure. It was 
actively supported as such, even by those who would 
have approved a stronger infusion of Federalism, 
particularly Hamilton, and its adoption by the people 
was viewed as a triumph of the Federalist party. 

It is worthy of remark, however, and it is credita- 
ble to the character of the Anti-federalists, that, after 
the Constitution was finally adopted, they acquiesced 
in it with cheerfulness. From that time to this it has 
been regarded by the unanimous consent of the coun- 
try as a system approaching very nearly to perfection, 
and which could not in any way be materially im- 
proved. The previous division upon general prin- 
ciples continued to exist, and the party names were 
for some time kept up ; but the controversy, so for as 
the Constitution was concerned, now turned not upon 
its merit but upon its meaning, and the manner in 
which it ought to be construed. As the real charkc- 
ter of a written constitution can hardly be ascertained 
with exactness in any other way than by experience, 
the ground of controversy, though somewhat nar- 
rowed, was still sufficiently extensive. Most of 
those who had actively supported the Constitution 
before its adoption, were now disposed to give it in 
practice the construction most favorable to the powers 



14 

of the General Government. Most of their oppo- 
nents, including, however, some prominent persons 
of the other party, particularly Mr. Madison, were 
disposed to give it a strict construction. Some even 
went so far as to contend that the States still retain- 
ed their entire independence, and that the present 
federal union is only another league, like the old 
Confederation, under a somewhat different form. 

Such, fellow-citizens, is the outline of this second 
political division. It is unnecessary, and would of 
course be uncharitable to suppose, that the individual 
members of either of the great parties which respect- 
ively supported and opposed the Federal Constitu- 
tion at the time of its formation and adoption, were 
actuated by unworthy motives. The course pursued 
by its supporters, having been approved by the unan- 
imous acquiescence of the country, requires no 
defence ; and, however highly we may now value the 
Constitution, it can be no matter of surprise with any 
reflecting man that, when first submitted to the peo- 
ple, it should have met with great opposition. The 
adoption of it accomplished a most material change 
in the government of the country, — a change hardly 
less important, though effected without bloodshed, 
than that which gave us independence. Indeed, the 
Anti-federalists, far from being obnoxious on just 
grounds to the charges of acting from vicious motives, 
or of being in general ill-informed or perverse, were, 
on the contrary, the party which had in its favor the 



15 

presumption of right, because they defended the ex- 
isting state of things against innovation. They had 
also the popular pretence of asserting the rights of 
the States against the encroachments of Govern- 
ment, — another golden topic. Nor did they want 
authority to back their reasoning. On the contrary, 
the weight of names, with a single great exception, 
which probably turned the scale against them, was, 
perhaps, on the whole, on their side. Take, for ex- 
ample, Virginia and Massachusetts, which were at 
that time as they have always been, among the lead- 
ing states of the Union. In Massachusetts, — setting 
aside John Adams, who was then in Europe, — the two 
most distinguished revolutionary patriots, — what do 
I say ? — the only two persons in the country, whose 
zeal had obtained for them the singular honor of pro- 
scription, — John Hancock and Samuel Adams, — 
were opposed to the Constitution. On the other 
hand, who were its principal supporters ? — the Par- 
sonses, the Kings, the Ameses, and the rest. — Men of 
yesterday, — young lawyers, before unknown to the 
country. They gave proof, no doubt, of eloquence, 
of talents, of book-learning, — but were these quali- 
ties, however precious in their way, to counterbalance 
the mature wisdom, the rich experience, the tried 
patriotism, of the incorruptible fathers of our liberty? 
Look now at Virginia. Mr. Madison, a young 
barrister of thirty years of age, comes forward and 
proposes to his fellow-citizens to abandon a part of 



16 

their individual and state rights, and submit to a 
General Government, possessing large, and, because 
untried, of course unknown powers : to acknowledge 
a single ruler {monarch) under the name of a Presi- 
dent, the precise extent of whose authority future 
experience alone could determine. The proposal 
was, it must be owned, not a very palatable one, and 
might well have alarmed a people less jealous on the 
subject of State Rights than that of the Ancient 
Dominion. Under these circumstances, the oldest 
and most respected of the Revolutionary patriots, — 
the man who was the first throughout the whole 
country to raise the cry of independence, — Patrick 
Henry himself, — then, if I mistake not, Governor of 
the State, — tells them, in the same familiar voice, 
sweeter than music, that was never known to de- 
ceive, that never lisped a sound that was not as pure 
and true as the word of inspiration, — that Mr. Madi- 
son, though a clever and honest young man, is 
wrong, — that the innovations he proposes are dan- 
gerous, — that, under the name of a President, he is 
imposing upon the country a tyrant in disguise, who 
will place one foot upon the borders of Maine, and 
the other upon the farthest extremity of Georgia, — 
and then, farewell to Liberty ! Is it singular that 
in such a conflict of opinions and authorities the peo- 
ple of Massachusetts and Virginia should have been 
divided, and that a strong party should have been 
opposed to the new system ? It is evident, on the 



17 

contrary, that the only wonder is how, in this state 
of things, which existed substantially throughout the 
union, the Federal Constitution could have been 
adopted. The force of truth, — the pressure of the 
immediate inconveniences resulting from the vices of 
the old system, — the unwearied activity of the friends 
of the new, — and, above all, the influence and 
authority of Washington must be well considered, 
before we can conceive the possibility of this salutary 
reform. 

Are we, then, lightly to charge the tried friends of 
the country, who opposed the Constitution, with 
selfishness or faction ? Are we even to regret their 
opposition, since, happily, it proved ineffectual ? It 
may boldly be said, on the contrary, that it was 
natural for many of the wisest and best men of the 
day, in their position, and at their age, to take this 
course. They had devoted the freshness of their 
youth, — the maturity and vigor of their riper years, — 
all the strength and wisdom that God had given 
them, — to the purpose of procuring for the country 
the state of things that it was now proposed to 
change. Was it for them, when they had reached 
the ordinary term of human existence, to begin a new 
and contrary course of action, and to undo what they 
had been all their lives so laboriously doing ? Surely 
not. Much as I admire the Constitution, — much as 
I rejoice that it was adopted, — I confess that I like 
these sterling old hearts the better for adhering firmly 

3 



18 

to the text of State sovereignty and the old Confede- 
ration, in defiance of what the}' doubtless regarded 
as a wanton and headstrong spirit of innovation. 

III. Thus much I have deemed it proper to remark 
upon the origin and characteristics of the Federal 
and Anti-federal parties. The new division which 
grew up soon after the adoption of the Constitution, 
though it coincided to a considerable extent, as 
respects the personal composition of the parties, with 
the preceding one, turned in general on questions 
essentially different. Of the new parties, the one 
that finally prevailed, assumed the name of Demo- 
cratic or Republican ; the other was designated by 
its opponents as the Aristocratic party, but continued 
to claim the title of Federal, although the subjects in 
controversy were now in a great measure foreign to 
the character and construction of the Constitution, and 
although the doctrine of the party, in regard to the 
latter, gradually assumed an Anti-federal tendency. 
There was this marked distinction between the new 
division and the preceding one, that while the latter 
turned upon points of controversy which were purely 
American, and was, of course, confined to this 
country, the former was only one branch of a general 
division that prevailed at the time, and still continues 
to prevail throughout the whole civilized world. 

In the early part of the year 1789, — the same in 
which the Federal Constitution went into operation, — 
about two months after the meeting of the first Con- 



19 

gress chosen under that instrument, — another body, 
composed in like manner of the elected deputies of a 
great people, called, in the first instance, the States 
General, but which afterwards took the title of the 
National Assembly of France, met, on the summons of 
the King, at Versailles, then the residence of the 
French court. This event was the first, in the order 
of time, of a series of political and military move- 
ments of absorbing interest and unparalleled impor- 
tance, which succeeded each other for the next five 
and twenty years with breathless rapidity, determin- 
ed the policy of all the other governments, and creat- 
ed divisions of opinion throughout the Christian 
world, which superseded and obliterated all others. 
Circumstances which I need not here recapitulate, 
but which resolve themselves ultimately into the in- 
creased wealth and intelligence of the industrious 
classes of the community, had inspired those classes 
throughout all the most civilized countries, and 
especially in France, with a strong desire to reform 
the existing institutions of government, and to in- 
corporate into them principles more favorable to 
individual rights and liberty. The most intelligent 
and enterprising persons, of all classes, generally 
shared this feeling, and took the lead in the move- 
ments that were made for giving it effect. On the 
other hand, the royal families, the feudal nobility, the 
clergy, and the long train of their dependants, 
alarmed at the probable effect of this tendency upon 



20 

the establishments from which they derived their 
consequence, and even their means of subsistence, 
opposed it with a zeal not inferior to that by which it 
was supported. The struggle commenced, and was 
carried on in various partial forms in the early pe- 
riods of the history of modern Europe. We see the 
symptoms of its approach in the tumultuary insurrec- 
tions of the peasantry in England and France, — in 
the wars of the Flemish cities with their feudal lords, 
— of the Guelphs and Ghibelines in Italy, and of the 
Commoners in Spain. The mighty movement of the 
Reformation, though directed immediately to other 
objects, derived much of its interest from its indirect 
effect upon the political situation of the parties to 
it. In England, indeed, the Reformation gradually 
lost its original character, and assumed that of a 
bloody, and, finally, a triumphant effort for political 
improvement. This was the first occasion on which 
the principle of reform, which had been so long at 
work, but which had previously employed itself 
chiefly on the abuses of the church, had displayed 
itself in a great country in its proper shape. Our 
own Revolution was the next instance ; but in both 
these cases the operation of the principle was limited 
in a great measure to the particular countries which 
were its principal seat. It was not until the imme- 
diate scene of action was transferred to France, — 
the heart, as I may say, of the great Christian com- 
monwealth of nations, — that it was first perceived 



21 

how intimately the causes of the movement were in- 
terwoven with the very foundations of the political 
system of Christendom, and the tranquillity of the 
world. 

From that time to the present day, but more es- 
pecially till the termination of the general war in 
Europe by the fall of Napoleon, the whole internal 
and foreign policy of all the powers of Europe and 
America have been directly or indirectly connected 
with the causes and circumstances of this great quar- 
rel. In every nation which was important enough 
to be at all affected by the operation of general 
causes, there grew up at once two great domestic 
parties, which espoused respectively the two oppo- 
site sides of the question at issue, applying it in 
each to the particular circumstances of their respect- 
ive governments. Where discussion was tolerated, the 
controversy blazed out at once through the press, — 
in deliberative assemblies, — in popular meetings. — 
Where public demonstrations of this description were 
prohibited, it silently agitated the mass of society 
in its dark and secret depths, until it finally burst 
forth with volcanic eruptions in the shape of open 
rebellions, — military revolutions, — the falling off of 
colonies from the parent country. Accordingly, as 
one or the other party predominated in the domes- 
tic policy of each particular nation, and was conse- 
quently represented by the government, the foreign 
policy of each assumed a different aspect ; and within 



22 

Iwo or three years from the holding of the French 
National Assembly, the difference had grown up into 
an open and general war, involving all the leading 
powers of Europe as principals, and all the inferior 
ones as allies and dependents. The great military 
monarchies of the East, in which the advancement of 
wealth and intelligence that lay at the bottom of the 
movement, was still in a great measure unknown, — 
where the government was still every thing and the 
individual nothing, — naturally took their places at the 
head of the party opposed to change and in favor 
of existing institutions. France, with most of the 
nations in her neighborhood, such as the Netherlands, 
Spain and Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, and a great 
part of Germany, — composed the opposite party. 
What course England would take in regard to this 
quarrel, was. from her insular position and the nature 
of her government, — itself the result of a revolu- 
tionary movement, proceeding substantially upon the 
principles at work in France, — beforehand in some 
degree doubtful. The hereditary hostility to France, 
and the instinct of self-preservation in the government 
as Mich, (the existing form of which would probably 
have been endangered by any connexion with that 
country,) after some delay and hesitation, decided the 
question. The navy and the wealth of the Queen of 
the Ocean were thrown into the scale of the great 
Continental Alliance, and save it an efficiency which 
ensured its triumph for the first half century of the 



23 

quarrel, — in Europe perhaps forever. Whether the 
British government consulted the real and permanent 
interest of the British nation, in thus aiding to break 
down the only imaginable barrier against the ultimate 
military ascendancy of Russia over the whole of Eu- 
rope, is a point which I need not here discuss, but 
which, — from the present policy of the British gov- 
ernment, in reference to substantially the same 
question, — is, we may presume, considered very 
doubtful even in England. 

France declared the war, which, however, could 
not properly be viewed as either offensive or de- 
fensive, because the particular griefs brought for- 
ward on one side or the other at the time of the 
original declaration, and, afterwards, were rather 
the pretences, or, at most, the occasions, than the 
causes of the quarrel. These, as I have shewn, lay 
much deeper than any accidental dispute about Malta, 
Oldenburg, or the little principalities on the banks of 
the Rhine. With this declaration, however, com- 
menced the long and extraordinary series of military 
and political events which filled up the history of the 
next thirty years, and which, in variety, magnitude 
and interest, throw completely into the shade all the 
other great movements recorded in the annals of the 
world. In those of modern Europe there is nothing 
at all to be paralleled with them, except the Refor- 
mation, which was, in fact, substantially the same 
action, proceeding on a smaller scale, in a much less 



24 

expanded form, and, of course, with far less brilliancy 
and effect, — a rehearsal, as it were, by way of pre- 
lude, to the final representation of the grand tragedy. 
Never before were the greatness and the weakness, — 
the folly and the wisdom, — the glory and the shame 
of our nature displayed in fuller relief, in all their 
various forms, than on both sides of this long and not 
yet ended struggle, wherever it was carried on. 
First came the clash of contending disciplined ar- 
mies, — then the shock of whole nations, rising in a 
sort of fury, and precipitating themselves upon each 
other. A host of accomplished commanders sprang 
as if by enchantment from the lowest ranks of the 
army, until finally, towering above them in the gran- 
deur of unapproached and unquestionable superiority, 
arose the ' Man of Destiny.' With heroes like these 
for her champions, and her whole infuriated popula- 
tion in her train, France, — like a beautiful maniac 
released from confinement, — roaming from country 
to country, — seduced by her doctrine and example, 
— overwhelmed by her power, and finally ground to 
the dust, under an iron military despotism, a great 
part of Europe, until the sleeping Colossus of the 
North was goaded into action, and compelled to ac- 
quire by experience a consciousness of power, which 
will probably not very soon be forgotten. Such was 
the course of events on the field of battle : in the 
mean time what exhibitions of intellectual talent in 
deliberative assemblies, and in print ! Never before, 



25 

at least since the brilliant days of Greece and Rome, 
had the world seen any thing like the constellation 
of orators that now appeared in the Parliaments of 
France and England and our own Congress. Never 
before was the theory of government so thoroughly 
probed to the bottom in all its parts, and illustrated 
with such transcendant power of thought and various 
graces of style, as in the best works of the political 
writers of those countries. Upon the annals of this 
eventful period, which will form forever the manual 
of the student in philosophy and politics, a few names 
stand conspicuous above the rest as unique in their 
respective ways : — Napoleon in the field, — Mira- 
beau at the tribune, — Burke in the cabinet, — 
Washington, — if we may view him as one of the 
personages of this action, as the hero or perfect man, 
— ' the world's great master and his own.' 

This division of opinion, feeling and action, which, 
as I have shewn, pervaded the whole Christian world, 
formed the basis of the new division of parties that 
grew up in this country after the Constitution went 
into operation. In the first instance, the whole 
American people sympathized warmly with the lead- 
ers of the French revolution, among the foremost of 
whom they saw their own beloved and admired 
Lafayette. At this time there was no dissentient 
voice among us. The whole people beheld with 
pride and gratification the first nation on the conti- 
nent of Europe, apparently moved by their impulse, 
4 



26 

and, in imitation of their example, attempting to 
recover its political and personal rights. Even the 
well-tempered mind of Washington was wrought up 
into something like enthusiasm, as appears very 
plainly from his address to the minister Adet. But 
when the Revolution, in its onward and hurried prog- 
ress, began to overstep the limits of justice and 
humanity at home, and to trample on the rights of 
other nations abroad, — when the French agents in 
this country endeavored to engage us in the war, 
and when there were even appearances of an inten- 
tion to overturn our own hardly established govern- 
ment, — the ardor of many of the more judicious 
friends of the cause very rapidly cooled, and a large 
portion of the citizens began to look with something 
more than distrust upon the whole revolutionary 
movement, and with favor and sympathy upon the 
efforts of the party in Europe, which sustained the 
cause of the existing political institutions. These 
opposite feelings were the real causes that gave ani- 
mation and interest to the long struggle of the Federal 
and Democratic parties. The controversy turned 
upon various questions of law and fact connected 
with the administration of our own and other govern- 
ments, and on the characters of prominent men at 
home and abroad: but the decision, in all these 
cases, was very much influenced, if not absolutely 
determined, by the opinion of the individual in regard 
to the great principles upon which the parties were 



27 

divided. From the most important maxims of public 
law, down to the simplest rules of construction and 
grammar, it was uniformly found that those who 
agreed in their general political views, would also 
agree upon the particular point at issue. 

The people of this country, therefore, fellow- 
citizens, were, like all their contemporaries, arranged 
into two great parties, according to their respective 
opinions and feelings upon the political questions then 
and still in agitation throughout the Christian world. 
On a view of this state of things, the first question 
that naturally presents itself is, which of these parties 
was in the right, and which in the wrong ? — To 
those who have well considered this subject, — and 
who that, for the last half century, has extended the 
sphere of his observation an inch beyond his own 
fireside has not ? — it is hardly necessary to say, that 
this question, taken in general, admits of no solution. 
The two parties rallied respectively under the ban- 
ners of the two great principles of Liberty and Law. 
Both these principles are essential elements in the 
constitution of society, in whatever form it may be 
organized, and neither can possibly exist in practice 
to the entire exclusion of the other. Liberty without 
law w r ould be the subversion of society : law without 
liberty would efface the individual, and leave him no 
existence as a moral and intellectual agent. Both 
these suppositions are not merely inconsistent with 
right, but impossible in fact. Society cannot exist 



28 

without individuals, nor can individuals exist without 
society : and as each can only exist in connexion 
with the other, each must have, of necessity, as well 
as of right, an appropriate sphere of activity. In 
other words, the individual must, in every event, 
possess a greater or less degree of liberty, and the 
society, as represented by the government, a greater 
or less degree of power, the expression of which is 
the law. The form of government is determined by 
the manner in which these two essential elements of 
social order are combined ; and whether a particular 
government be good or bad, that is, well or ill adapt- 
ed to the condition and character of the society, is a 
question which may be answered, although the solu- 
tion can, in general, only be furnished by the results of 
a pretty long course of experience. But if the question 
be, — which of two persons or parties respectively fa- 
voring the principles of law and liberty is right, and 
which is wrong ? — it is obvious, as I have said, that no 
answer can be given. Perhaps we may say, that both 
are in the right. Both profess and sustain principles 
in themselves correct, and essential to the public 
welfare. Each has been led by circumstances or 
character to look at the body politic from a particu- 
lar point of view. The friend of liberty loves to 
dwell on the busy movement of the individual mem- 
bers, and fears to see it hampered by the wanton 
interference of government : the champion of law 
prefers to contemplate the harmonious action of the 



29 

whole, and is more apprehensive that this will be 
disturbed by the eccentric efforts of individuals. If 
they are brought in any way into collision, each is 
naturally prone to misunderstand and misrepresent 
the intentions of his opponent : an impartial observer 
sees without difficulty that both are substantially in the 
right. It is the old fable of the two knights, who were 
about to engage in single combat on the subject of 
the color of a shield, which w T as black on one side 
and white on the other, and of which each had only 
seen the side next to him. 

But though the great questions at issue in this con- 
troversy may properly be considered as insoluble in 
the abstract, it is nevertheless certain that at partic- 
ular times and places the general current of opinion 
among the active portion of the community will natu- 
rally take a direction towards one side or the other. 
When the want of the wholesome influence of a set- 
tled and regular government has been for some time 
experienced, the tendency will be strong in favor of 
Law. Such was the case in this country, during the 
period which followed the Peace of Independence, 
and in this way only can we account for the possibil- 
ity of accomplishing by tranquil means such a change 
as was made by the adoption of the Federal Consti 
tution. Such must now be the case in Spanish 
America, and it would, therefore, be quite natural 
that the next great effort which we may witness in 
these regions should be an attempt to give more 



30 

efficiency to their political institutions. When, on 
the other hand, the opposite evil, that is the abuse of 
power by the existing authorities, has been for a long 
time the one principally felt, the tendency of opinion 
will be towards political reform and individual liber- 
ty. Such was the state of things throughout the 
Christian world, including this country, with the ex- 
ception of the short interval of time just alluded to, 
for more than two centuries before the opening of the 
French Revolution. From the first preaching of 
Luther, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, till 
the meeting of the States General in France, at the 
close of the eighteenth, the whole mind of Europe 
was entirely occupied in efforts to effect a reform of 
abuses, real or supposed, in the existing institutions, 
political and religious. All the energy, activity and 
spirit of society were employed in this way. All the 
powerful thinking, fine writing, bold and vigorous 
action were among the reformers. The newly dis- 
covered and tremendous artillery of the press was 
almost wholly in their hands. There was nothing to 
oppose them but the constantly diminishing vis inertia 
of the established institutions, until the excesses of 
the French Revolution finally awoke a reaction. 
Compare, for example, the lion-port of Luther with 
the caution of Erasmus, the most intelligent advo- 
cate of the old system. Compare, at a later period, 
the Miltons, Lockes, Sydney s, Montesquieus, Vol- 
taires, Rousseaus, with their too unequal adversaries, 



31 

whose very names must now be hunted up in the 
dust of libraries. A zeal, — a rage, I may call it, — 
for improvement, was the leading characteristic of 
the period, or, in the common language, the Spirit 
of the Age. It created a current of opinion, which 
drew in, with irresistible force, all the active and 
energetic members of society, as fast as they came 
upon the stage of action, and determined for life their 
position in reference to this great question, unless it 
was afterwards changed by accidental influences of 
an opposite character. 

In this country, fellow-citizens, the case was 
stronger, perhaps, than in any other. The very 
existence of our community was a double revolt 
against the established institutions and consecrated 
principles of the old world. The original settlement 
of the colonies, at least in New England, was deter- 
mined on in stern and desperate defiance of oppres- 
sion. It was a new Secession of the People ; — not like 
that of Rome, to a neighboring hill, but to another 
hemisphere. The Revolution that tore us from the 
mother-country, and first gave us a national exist- 
ence, was another not less decisive exhibition of the 
same spirit. Our fathers and forefathers, the Puri- 
tans, led the van in Europe and America, in the 
active demonstration of the principles that agitated 
the world. What the Luthers, the Lockes, the 
Montesquieus, were tracing on parchment in their 
closets, the Hampdens and the Cromwells were 



32 

writing in blood with the points of their swords upon 
the tablets of history. They effected the British 
Revolution, and, as Hume correctly remarks, gave 
to England all the liberty she ever did possess, or 
ever will. When the country thus liberated, under- 
took, in requital for the service, to oppress the portion 
of them who had retired to America, they resisted 
the futile attempt, as may well be supposed, with 
indignant decision, and gave the world another prac- 
tical illustration of the spirit of the times. Then rose 
into being the wonder of the West, our young Re- 
public, bodying forth in sober earnest, — in actual 
terrestrial reality, — before the eye of Christendom, 
the lovely vision that had so long fired the imagination 
of her sons. It was to them, in the language of the 
Apocalypse, ' the holy city coming down from God 
out of heaven, beautiful as a bride adorned for her 
husband.' The most intelligent, accomplished and 
gallant of the chivalry of Europe came out in crowds 
to fight our battles, and went home exasperated, 
almost to insanity, by the lessons they had learned 
and the feelings they had imbibed among us against 
the abuses of their own governments. Our Declara- 
tions of Independence and the Rights of Man became 
at once their sacred volume. I do but repeat an 
admitted and familiar truth, when I say, that our 
example was the spark that fired the mass of revolu- 
tionary materials which had been so long accumulat- 
ing in France ; that the Fourth of July, 1776, opened, 



33 

to use the words of an eminent German writer, a new 
era in the history of the civilized world. 

Such, fellow-citizens, being the spirit of the times, 
and such the relation in which our country stood to 
its development and practical exhibition, is it won- 
derful that the Democratic party, which represented 
the friends of improvement and liberty, should have 
embraced with us a large portion of the people ? — 
that the Federalists, who represented, in like man- 
ner, the counteracting movement in favor of estab- 
lished institutions and the laws, should have gene- 
rally been in the minority, often a very small one ? 
Setting entirely aside the abstract question of right, 
which I have shewn to be insoluble, and the minor 
questions of law and fact which successively came 
up, and in regard to which the two parties were al- 
ternately in the right and in the wrong, is it wonder- 
ful that the grand, overwhelming current of opinion, 
which swept down every thing before it, should have 
taken the direction it did ? Is it wonderful that the 
generation of that day should have sympathized rap- 
turously, and almost unanimously, with the fortunes 
of the patriots abroad, who had already fought our 
battles, and were now practising upon our lessons 
and example ? It was sometimes said in the bitter- 
ness of controversy, that the Democratic party in this 
country were acting under French influence. Is it not 
evident, on the contrary, that it was the Democratic 
party in Europe who were thinking, writing, feeling, 

5 



34 

fighting, dying under American influence ? Is it abso- 
lutely necessary to suppose, that the men among us, 
who professed and acted on principles and feelings 
which they had inherited from several generations of 
ancestors, which had given them existence as a 
nation, and all their privileges as citizens of a free 
Republic, — which were those of the purest, most 
enlightened, most illustrious men in Europe for the 
three last centuries, from More to Mackintosh, — 
which had rendered our community an example, and 
a wonder, a burning and a shining light to all the 
others, — is it, we say, absolutely necessary to sup- 
pose that men who professed and acted upon such 
principles and feelings, were, for that reason, as indi- 
viduals or as a party, either interested, corrupt, 
inconceivably and intolerably perverse, or, lastly, 
under foreign influence ? — Surely not. 

I go farther, gentlemen, and, admitting that the 
question, whether the friends of Liberty or Law be 
in the right is insoluble, except by reference to the 
circumstances of each particular case, I can have 
no hesitation in saying, that, taking these circum- 
stances into view, — considering the situation of the 
Christian world at the time when the tendency to 
change began, — this tendency was, on the whole, a 
beneficial one, and, of course, that the Democratic 
party, which was acting under its influence, — though 
subject, like all other individuals and masses of men, 
to occasional error of every kind, was mainly, as to 



35 

its great objects, in the right, and the opposition 
party, which sustained the existing establishments 
with all their abuses, in the wrong. I can have no 
hesitation in saying, that the first great practical re- 
sult of this tendency, the Religious Reformation, — 
notwithstanding the excesses, — the horrors, I may 
say, — by which it was disgraced, — not inferior to 
those of the French revolution, — was a public bene- 
fit. That its next great practical result, the British 
Revolution of the seventeenth century, to which we 
owe the British constitution of 1688, — the great exam- 
plar of all the representative governments that have 
since been established, including our own, — was a 
public benefit. That its third great practical result, our 
own Independence, was a public benefit. And, finally, 
that its last great practical result, the French Revo- 
lution, with its consequences throughout, the world, 
including, among them, the emancipation of Spanish 
America, and the reform now in progress in the Brit- 
ish government, — with all its unpardonable excesses, 
which none can lament and abhor more sincerely 
than I do, — will prove in the end a public benefit. 

If either of these points were regarded as ques- 
tionable, it would probably be the last : but even 
this may now be looked upon as settled, so far, at 
least, as any point can be settled by the unanimous 
consent of the whole English community on both 
sides of the water. The two parties which respec- 
tively supported and opposed the French Revolution 



36 

are still in presence on the continent of Europe, and 
animated by as deep and deadly a hostility as ever. 
But, in England as well as in France, the party 
which opposed the Revolution has dwindled into a 
feeble minority, exercising no influence whatever in 
political affairs. The Government, once its warm 
champion, is now enlisted on the other side. In this 
country the party, corresponding with that of the 
supporters of legitimacy in Europe, has entirely ceased 
to exist. The argument which Ames illuminated 
with the rainbow hues of his brilliant fancy, which 
Lowell so long rendered plausible by his close, point- 
ed, and ever ready logic, is now abandoned. From 
Maine to Missouri not a voice was raised in opposi- 
tion to the Revolution of the three memorable days 
in France, or to 'the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing 
but the Bill,' in England ; — not a whisper has been 
heard in justification of Charles the Tenth, or in sup- 
port of the theories or pretensions of the Holy Allies. 
This country was the first to acknowledge the inde- 
pendence of the Spanish colonies ; England the first 
European power that followed our example, and, in 
both cases, the prudence of the governments could 
hardly keep pace with the general enthusiasm of the 
people. When the late rebellion broke out in Po- 
land, what was done in Boston, which, twenty years 
ago, celebrated with so much enthusiasm the victories 
that placed that kingdom under the government of 
Russia 1 She now celebrated with equal enthusiasm 



37 

the patriotic effort of the Poles, and sent them out a 
pair of beautifully painted standards, as tokens of her 
sympathy. In their hour of misfortune the generous 
Polish exiles came to us for relief and refuge. What 
was the feeling among us, in regard to the attempts 
at political improvement during the last twenty years 
in Belgium, Germany and Italy ? With what senti- 
ments did the American people hail the re-appear- 
ance of Greece among the nations ? With what sen- 
timents did they receive the intelligence, that liberty 
is finally to triumph in the Spanish peninsula ? But 
1 need not push these inquiries farther ? It must be 
apparent to all, that though the general question now 
in agitation throughout the Christian world is, as I 
have said, in substance precisely the same as it was 
twenty years ago, when it formed the principal sub- 
ject upon which our domestic parties were divided, 
it has now ceased to be a question in this country. 
On this point at least we are happily all agreed. 

It may, therefore, fellow-citizens, be assumed as 
certain, — so far, at least, as the general consent of 
the English and American public can make it so, — 
that the tendency under which the Democratic party 
acted after the adoption of the Constitution was not 
only perfectly natural, but substantially a right and 
beneficial one, — that it was, in short, the tendency 
of the age. It does not, however, follow that their 
opponents were always in the wrong in regard to 
particular measures. They were strong in the supe- 



38 

rior correctness of their views in regard to the Fede- 
ral Constitution, which, though no longer the princi- 
pal subject of controversy, was occasionally brought 
into discussion ; and they were often strong in the 
errors of their opponents. While the Federalists 
possessed the power, the Republicans, as is usual 
with opposition parties, opposed almost every measure 
of the government, and in this way often placed 
themselves in the wrong. After 1800, the case was 
reversed in this respect ; and the Federalists, from 
the usual tendency to indiscriminate opposition, were 
led to disapprove some of the wisest and most fortu- 
nate measures that the government has ever adopted, 
as, for example, the purchase of Louisiana. While 
the contest was carried on with activity between 
these two parties, and it did not subside until the 
close of the war of 1812, it was accompanied, of 
course, with the bitterness of feeling which is always 
generated by such a struggle. Neither party, at the 
time, probably did full justice to the other. The 
serious charges of perversity, foreign influence, and 
even direct bribery and corruption, were bandied 
about with great freedom. This merely partisan 
coloring has long since disappeared with the feelings 
of which it was only a transitory and unsubstantial 
reflection. It is now admitted by the whole Ameri- 
can people, (with the exception of the few individuals 
remaining in active life, who were themselves engag- 
ed in the controversy,) that these parties were com- 



39 

posed, very much like others, of mixed materials ;-— 
that of the members of both, some acted on pure 
principles and patriotic feelings, and some from inter- 
ested motives, while the mass were interested by 
accidental circumstances, over which they had little 
control ; — that, taking the parties throughout, the 
proportion of the different sorts of ingredients was 
nearly the same in both, although each, in the sec- 
tion where it greatly predominated, naturally includ- 
ed a larger share of the intelligence, property and 
influence of the community. 

Notwithstanding the severe reproaches that were 
lavished by each of these parties on the other, it will 
now be admitted by impartial men, that the manner 
in which the controversy was conducted is highly 
honorable to the character of both and to that of the 
country. No where and at no time, especially in a 
community of such extent, has a civil contest of this 
description been urged with so much moderation, — 
such uniform regard, on both sides, for the whole- 
some restraints of order and law, — such tenderness 
for human life. Compare the history of these divis- 
ions with that of those which distracted the ancient 
Republics, or the modern free states of Italy, and 
the Netherlands. Compare the manner in which the 
controversy was conducted here, with that in which 
substantially the same controversy, — between the 
great principles of Liberty and Law, — was carried 
on at the same time, in France, England, or any 



40 

other part of Europe. In the general respect which 
was here habitually felt for order and life, — in the 
mutual courtesy which prevailed in public and private 
discussions, — a few slight aberrations from decorum 
were magnified into mighty matters ; but the worst 
excesses that occurred here would hardly have been 
thought worth notice in the newspapers of any other 
country. There were hard words and hard thoughts, 
— more, perhaps, than charity would always justify, 
— but there the matter ended. When the fury of 
passion had reached its height, it was quieted by the 
effusion of ink instead of blood. A debate in Con- 
gress or in town-meeting, — a discussion in the news- 
papers, — were the only broils and battles that were 
known to our fathers. This was a great improve- 
ment upon the mode in which such controversies 
have been heretofore and elsewhere managed. For 
myself, though inclined by temperament and habit to 
take a favorable view of human nature, and to indulge 
in rather sanguine prospects of the improvement of 
society, I see no reason to expect that the principle 
of evil will ever be wholly extirpated, or will cease 
to influence, in some degree, the progress of affairs, 
whether public or private. And if any scope at all 
is to be allowed to the action of this principle ; — 
if human nature is to remain here, as elsewhere, 
with all its improvements, at a point somewhat below 
that of absolute perfection ; — if varieties of character 
and situation are to create, as they have always 



41 

done, differences of opinion among the members of 
the same communities ; — I am unable to conceive, 
from any examples yet recorded in the annals of the 
world, how such differences or the controversies that 
must of course grow out of them, can possibly assume 
a milder shape than they have hitherto done with us. 
Happy will it be for our posterity, if the moderation 
of the party controversies of the last generation be 
not as strongly illustrated by contrast, in the future 
history of that country, as it is in the past and pres- 
ent history of almost all others. 

IV. In farther illustration of this view of the subject, 
let us glance, for a moment, at the personal compo- 
sition of the parties, and at the characters of some of 
the prominent leaders. In so doing, we may, per- 
haps, without impropriety, exclude from the number 
the names of Washington and John Adams, although 
they have, in general, been ranked, in the popular 
opinion, with the Federalists. They concurred with 
that party, in the first controversy about the Consti- 
tution, and were supported by it successively for the 
Presidentship, but were not completely identified 
with it after the dispute turned upon the new ground 
of foreign policy. Mr. Adams came to an open rup- 
ture with the leaders of the party upon this subject, 
which probably defeated his re-election, and with it 
their ascendancy in the country. Washington, in 
constituting his cabinet, studiously attempted to 
reconcile discordant opinions ; and his personal ten- 
6 



42 

dencies were in unison with those of the time and of 
the Democratic party. But both these great men had 
been aiming too exclusively, all their lives, at Amer- 
ican objects, to take a very strong interest in a party 
division which looked at all beyond the sphere of our 
own country. The most conspicuous persons in the 
new parties, as they were organized after the Consti- 
tution went into operation, belonged to a younger 
class, of which Jefferson on one side, and Hamilton 
on the other, may be looked upon as the representa- 
tives and leaders. 

Jefferson and Hamilton were both men of first-rate 
talent, and the most elevated private character. 
They were both devoted, heart and soul, to the 
cause of independence, and, by their unwearied and 
effectual exertions in support of it, had given to the 
country the strongest possible pledges of the sincerity 
of their patriotism. During the struggle with Eng- 
land, they acted entirely in concert, though in differ- 
ent spheres. After the conclusion of peace, their 
courses gradually diverged, and they at length came 
into open opposition ; but it is easy, without dispar- 
agement to the merits of ekher, to find, in the cir- 
cumstances in which they were respectively placed, 
causes which led them to take different views of the 
general principles of government and the character 
of particular men and measures. 

Immediately after the close of the war, Mr. Jeffer- 
son went to Europe, and took Jiis station as the 



43 

representative of his country at the Court of France, 
where he resided until about the time when the Con- 
stitution of the United States went into operation. 
This was precisely the period of the opening of the 
French Revolution. Mr. Jefferson, by his position 
in France, and the part he had taken in our own 
Revolution, was looked up to by the friends of reform 
as a sort of oracle. They constantly recurred to him 
as an experienced and successful champion of the 
same cause in which they were engaged, for counsel 
and direction. The prominent patriots often met at 
his house. The Declaration of Rights, which pre- 
ceded the first French constitution, was drafted, we 
are told, in concert by him and Lafayette. With a 
committee so composed, it is easy to imagine from 
what quarter proceeded the principal suggestions. 
The first constitution was proposed after a consulta- 
tion among the leading patriots, which took place at 
Mr. Jefferson's residence. In giving his approbation, 
his sympathy, — his concurrence, so far as he could 
do it with official propriety, — to the earliest move- 
ments of the French Revolution, he found himself 
sustained by the unanimous consent of all the men 
whose opinions could with him be supposed to possess 
much Value. Was it unnatural then, that, under 
these circumstances, the tendency to popular princi- 
ples of government, which he carried with him to 
Europe, should have been confirmed and fixed forev- 
er as the ruling bias of his mind ? Is it necessary to 



II 

suppose him either imbecile, corrupt or perverse, if, 
under these circumstances, he continued to dwell 
habitually upon the existing abuses of Power, rather 
than the possible abuses of Liberty ? Is it just to 
represent him as feeling, thinking, or acting under 
French influence, when he was simply pursuing the 
same line of feeling, thought and action as before, 
and was, in fact, himself one of the principal chan- 
nels through which the people of this country were 
at this time exercising upon France that American 
influence, which, as I have said, was one of the most 
efficient causes in determining the course of events 
in Europe ? 

Let us now look at the position of Hamilton. At 
the time when Mr. Jefferson went to Europe, he was 
elected a member of the Continental Congress, and 
continued, till the adoption of the Constitution, to 
take a most active concern in the political affairs of 
the country- He was now, for the first time, called 
upon to give his attention to the principles of civil 
polity, the sphere of his action having been, during the 
war, exclusively military. During this period the situ- 
ation of the United States was, as I have had occasion 
to remark, a sort of exception to thai of nil the rest 
of the civilized world. It was ;i time of reaction. 
While tin; evils chiefly complained of every where 
else (as with us until the accomplishment of Indepen- 
dence) were the abuses of constitutional power, in 
our case the difficulty now lay in the want of an 



45 

efficient and properly organized government. While 
the natural tendency among the intelligent and well- 
meaning every where else, (as with us before the Rev- 
olution,) was in favor of reforming established institu- 
tions, correcting abuses, restraining the action of Gov- 
ernment, and enlarging that of individuals, — in one 
word, of Liberty, — the natural tendency among the 
same class of persons in the United States, at that pe- 
riod, was in favor of strengthening established institu- 
tions, reenforcing the government, increasing and ex- 
tending the influence of the Law. The political affairs 
of the Union were in a state of confusion, — the taxes 
could not be collected, — the treaties with foreign pow- 
ers were not executed ; — commerce and manufactures 
were entirely at a stand, for want of proper legal 
regulation and protection ; — credit was unknown ; 
in some of the States there were already open insur- 
rections ; — every thing, in short, indicated weakness 
in the main springs of the political machine. The 
tendency, therefore, in favor of such a reform as 
would give them more efficiency, was a just and nat- 
ural one. It resulted, happily for the country, in the 
adoption of the present Constitution. In the whole 
movement, which terminated in this most salutary 
measure, Hamilton, as is well known, took a very- 
active part. With an ardor belonging to his age and 
temperament, he carried his views of the extent of 
the reforms that were necessary considerably beyond 
those of most of his fellow-laborers in the work. He 



46 

proposed his own plans with frankness ; but when he 
found that they were not relished, he acquiesced with 
readiness in those which were preferred, and exer- 
cised all his talents and influence in procuring their 
adoption. He is understood, however, to have 
believed that the Constitution would not, ultimately, 
prove to be practicable, and that, after giving it a 
proper trial, it would be found necessary to recur 
to a stronger system. In this opinion he probably 
died. But, however this may be, it was the obvious 
effect of the whole course of thought, reasoning, 
writing and action in which he was engaged, during 
the period between the Peace and the adoption of 
the Constitution, to divert his attention from the 
abuses of Power, and fix it upon the dangers of Lib- 
erty ; to impress, in short, upon his mind, a tendency 
opposed to the general spirit of the times, and similar 
to that which was felt by the party in Europe, that 
sustained the existing governments against the move- 
ments of the French Revolution. 

Prepared in this way> by the influence of the situa- 
tions in which they were placed after the close of the 
war, to take distinct and even opposite views of the 
tendency of the age, these two eminent men, upon 
the first organization of the government, found them- 
selves called upon to occupy the two first places in 
the administration, and to act together, as they best 
might, under the superior direction of Washington, in 
the conduct of the public affairs. Equally intelligent, 



47 

upright and patriotic as they were, they would 
probably have been able, notwithstanding the differ- 
ences in their general views, to concur as to most 
matters of practice, in which that difference was not 
immediately involved ; but, under the particular cir- 
cumstances in which the government and the country 
were then placed, it was brought more or less into 
discussion by almost every new measure that was 
proposed. The constant collision in which they 
were thus placed, of course confirmed them both 
in their respective views, and finally became so 
unpleasant that they both retired from the cabinet. 
In the mean time, however, the whole American 
people were agitated by the same controversies, and 
the two parties looked respectively to Jefferson and 
Hamilton as their representatives in the government, 
and their principal champions and leaders. Each of 
them gradually became, for one great portion of the 
people, a personification, as it were, of the high 
political principle, — Liberty on the one hand, and 
Law on the other, — which formed the watchword and 
symbol of his party. Both, though comparatively 
very young when they acquired this commanding- 
influence over the opinions and feelings of their coun- 
trymen, maintained it undiminished till the close of 
their lives. Hamilton, though a private citizen, 
ruled with despotic empire in the hearts of his 
political friends till the day of his untimely death. 
Jefferson, representing the ideas to which the force of 



48 

circumstances necessarily gave the ascendancy, rose 
rapidly to the first places in the government, swept 
down all opposition at his re-election as President, 
and even after his retirement from the Presidentship 
was still regarded as the oracle of his party. 

Jefferson and Hamilton, therefore, stood forth 
in their day and generation, before the American 
people, as the respective personal representatives of 
the great ideas of Liberty and Law ; — the two essen- 
tial elements of social order, whose combination, in 
one form and another, is indispensable in every con- 
stituted society, but which the force of circumstances 
had, at that time, brought into hostile conflict. Mr. 
Jefferson's object was Liberty. He felt and personi- 
fied, for a large portion of his countrymen, the 
tendency of the times towards a reform of the abuses 
of government, and an extension of the sphere of 
individual activity. The political and military move- 
ments which originated in this tendency, were in 
Europe led by France, and opposed by England. 
France was strenuously laboring for the accomplish- 
ment of the objects which he considered most desira- 
ble : England was strenuously opposing it. Under 
these circumstances, it was a matter of course that 
he should wish for the success of France, and the 
failure of England : not that he cared any thing for 
France or England as such, but that, desiring the 
end, he naturally desired the means. To Hamilton 
and his friends, on the other hand, whose object and 



49 

watchword was Lato, — who felt and represented for 
the American people the counteracting tendency of 
the party in Europe that opposed the movement of 
the French Revolution, — England, for the same 
reason, appeared as an ally, and France as an obsta- 
cle. Neither party cared any thing for France or 
England, as such : neither was under foreign influ- 
ence. Foreign influence takes place when individuals 
or parties, from corrupt motives, espouse the interest 
of a foreign nation at the expense of that of their 
own. To wish or to endeavor to promote the success 
of a nation, whose interest you suppose at the time 
to be identical with that of your own, is not a proof 
of foreign influence, but of patriotism more or less 
enlightened, accordingly as the view you take of the 
subject is more or less correct. 

The object of Mr. Jefferson, through life, was, 
therefore, as I have said, to increase and extend the 
influence of the great principle of Liberty, to which 
he had attached his faith, and which formed, as it 
were, his religion. In his first effort, when still a 
mere youth, he moved, as a Representative in the 
General Assembly of Virginia, the immediate eman- 
cipation of all the slaves, — in his bold, vigorous and 
effectual exertions in the cause of Independence, — in 
his long, sagacious, and successful campaigns, as the 
acknowledged leader of the Republican party, — and, 
finally, in the tenor of all his writings, public and 
private, we see the steady operation of this one pre- 
7 



50 

dominating principle. It would be difficult to find 
another political character of equal distinction, in 
whose course there is less appearance of any varia- 
bleness, or even shadow of turning : and this, inde- 
pendently of other considerations, which place the 
matter beyond a doubt, is a strong proof of his entire 
sincerity. The youth who could stand up in an assem- 
bly of slave-holding planters, with a proposal for im- 
mediate emancipation, the idea of which even now and 
in the free States curdles the blood of every judicious 
friend of humanity, was no selfish calculator, and, I 
may boldly say, could never have become one. In 
like manner, the man who, still in the prime of life, 
being scarcely over thirty years of age, — after ap- 
pearing with so much distinction in the Continental 
Congress, — after writing the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence, could resign his seat, and retire to his pater- 
nal acres and state politics, was evidently not under 
the influence of selfish ambition. The difficulty 
would rather be to reconcile this and some passages 
of his after life with the line of conduct prescribed by 
patriotic feeling and an enlightened sense of duty. 
After his retirement from Congress, he is understood to 
have declined the appointment of Minister to France, 
the most attractive certainly that could then have 
been offered to a man of his age and character. He 
preferred a seat in the Virginia Legislature. He 
is elected Governor of the State, and after re-election 
retires from the office. He finally goes out to France 



51 

as Minister, is transferred from that post to the head 
of the cabinet of Washington, from which, after serv- 
ing through the first Presidential term, he again 
retires to private life. This moderation, it has some- 
times been said, was merely affected, as a means of 
attaining with greater certainty the ultimate objects 
of his ambition. But if such were the fact, how can 
we account for the resolute determination with which, 
after the close of his second term, he retires forever 
from the scene of action ? 

' Lowliness is young Ambition's ladder, 
Whereto the climber upward turns his face, 
But having once attained the topmost round, 
He then unto the ladder turns his back, 
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees 
By which he did ascend.' 

Mr. Jefferson, after ' attaining the topmost round,' 
and when his popularity was such that he might, 
without difficulty, have continued to occupy it for the 
rest of his days, voluntarily resigned it, at an age 
when the mere lust of power and office is as hot as 
at any other, and passed twenty years in complete 
retirement, without, so far as we can judge from his 
correspondence, casting a single longing, lingering 
look at the elevation which he had left. 

' Was this Ambition ? ' 

Let us then be just to human nature. Let us 
consent to admit that there may be such things as 
principle, patriotism, and public virtue, when we 



52 

have before us an overwhelming mass of unquestion- 
able facts, which cannot be accounted for in any 
other way. If we wish that our children should look 
back with tenderness, respect and gratitude to us, let 
us not blaspheme with wanton and groundless accusa- 
tions the memory of our political fathers, the founders 
of our institutions, — the givers, under Providence, of 
all the blessings we enjoy. Why indulge in harsh sus- 
picions of men, whose career was one long, unbroken 
act of public service, because they occasionally dif- 
fered on particular questions, when we know that 
they had themselves, long before their deaths, for- 
gotten these differences, and gone down together in 
kindness to their honored graves ? Such were not 
the feelings with which, a few years ago, we laid 
them side by side in one sepulchre, the great twin 
civil fathers of our Liberty, — lovely in their lives, 
and in their deaths not divided, — whom Providence, 
as if to ratify forever the amnesty of all unfriendly 
feeling, upon which they had agreed themselves 
many years before, called to their account on the 
very same day, and that the anniversary of their 
country's independence. Such were not the feelings 
with which hundreds of the greatest and best men 
of all parties and opinions united on that occasion in 
unanimous acknowledgment of the equal and un- 
paralleled services and virtues of both ; with which 
the whole people, in the beautiful language of Homer, 
' smiled through their tears' in a kind of mournful 



53 

rapture at the strange and charming coincidence in 
the times of their departure. Such is not, — such, I 
am bold to say, never will be, — the feeling of the 
country. 

The great value of the public services of Mr. 
Jefferson is generally acknowledged, but the full 
extent and variety of them can hardly be appreciated, 
except by those who have studied with some attention 
the course of his life. The labors of one of the least 
conspicuous portions of his public career, when he 
acted as a member of the Virginia Legislature after 
his retirement from Congress, would be enough, of 
themselves, to found the reputation, — I had almost 
said, to fill the life, — of most other great men. Dur- 
ing the two or three years of this period, in addition 
to the ordinary routine of legislative and other politi- 
cal business connected with the general state of the 
country, he digested the whole common law of Eng- 
land and the statutes up to the time of James I., so 
far as they required to be altered for application to 
this country, into bills ready for the action of the 
Legislature, — most of which have since been adopted, 
and now form the basis of the code of Virginia. 
This was a great work, considered as a mere monu- 
ment of industry ; but is hardly worth notice, under 
this point of view, in comparison with its importance 
as a medium for the introduction of new principles of 
legislation. Among these principles were the abro- 
gation of the laws of entails and primogeniture, — the 



establishment of religious freedom,— the complete 
reform of the criminal code, including the abolition 
of capital punishment in all cases excepting treason 
and murder, — -the emancipation, at a certain age, of all 
the slaves bom after the passage of the act, — the division 
of the counties into wards or towns, — and the intro- 
duction of a system of popular education, providing 
for a school in each town, an academy in each coun- 
ty, and a university for the State. The three first of 
these improvements were carried into effect : most 
unfortunately for the interest of Virginia, the three 
last did not receive the assent of the Legislature. 
Had they been adopted, the situation of Virginia 
would have now been very different from what it is. 
To repair this omission in regard to education, was 
one of the principal employments of Mr. Jefferson 
after his retirement from office. Such, fellow-citizens, 
were the more than Herculean labors of this truly 
great man, during two or three of the least conspic- 
uous years of his life. Those who, in the course ol 
a long and active career, have been fortunate enough 
to render to the public a service equal in importance 
to the introduction of anyone of these great improve- 
ments, will be most competent to understand, and 
least disposed to depreciate, the claims of this distin- 
guished statesman to the respect and gratitude of his 
countrymen. 

Let it be remembered, too, that the person by 
whom all these mighty works were effected, — these 



55 

responsibilities assumed, — these dangers encounter- 
ed, — was a gentleman of the first social connexions, 
and of large hereditary fortune, — unaffected, of 
course, by any of the accidental motives which are 
generally supposed to be the only effectual spurs to 
extraordinary exertion. On a view of all these cir- 
cumstances, 1 do not well see how any judicious 
observer can feel himself authorized to attribute the 
course of Mr. Jefferson's political conduct to any 
other motive than an ardent zeal for liberty, — exces- 
sive, possibly, at times, — but always honest, and 
tending, as he understood it, to the general good. 

Mr. Jefferson seems to have been endowed by na- 
ture with all the higher mental qualities, and his 
early distinction proves the exemplary industry with 
which he turned his talents to account. He must 
have been one of the youngest members of Congress, 
his age being about thirty-two, at the time when he 
was placed at the head of the committee for preparing 
the Declaration of Independence. The spirit which 
animates this celebrated paper, and the vigorous res- 
olution with which its author had directed his efforts 
towards the promotion of the great object of it, from 
the time of his first appearance in Congress, evince 
the natural energy and firmness of his character. At 
the same time, these qualities were probably temper- 
ed in him with a larger infusion of policy than they 
were in some of his distinguished contemporaries, and 
this circumstance contributed much to his success in 



56 

the world. He combined with his active disposition 
and talents a strong taste for contemplative pursuits, 
and was early smitten with the charms of ' divine 
philosophy.' Although he no where makes in his 
published writings an ostentatious or improper dis- 
play of learning, it is easy to see that they are the 
productions of a disciplined and studious mind. His 
Notes on Virginia, which are among the earliest of 
them, prove that he had already explored with a 
curious eye the various departments of intellectual, 
moral and physical science, and had speculated with 
a free and independent spirit upon the facts that fell 
under his observation. It is known that he continued 
through life to devote his leisure hours to these 
delightful recreations. His range of study included 
not only the great subjects just mentioned, which 
form the theoretical basis of all knowledge, but also 
the subsidiary branches, that teach the application of 
the former to the uses of life, such as the ancient and 
modern languages, and mathematics pure and mixed. 
He descended even from his habitually elevated 
region of inquiry to the common walks of practical 
labor ; was much engaged in agricultural pursuits, 
and proposed himself an improvement of the plough. 
He was curious, in short, in regard to every part of 
useful or elegant learning, and nothing that seemed 
likely to contribute to the general good escaped his 
attention. He also possessed a strong taste for the 
fine arts, and is said to have lived much, while 



57 

abroad, in the society of the eminent artists of 
Europe. His style of writing, though not a perfect 
model, is more correct and elegant than that of any 
contemporary statesman, and has more of the point 
and precision that mark the manner of a close think- 
er. The stores of various knowledge with which he 
had stocked his memory gave a rich fulness to his 
thoughts, even on mere matters of business; arid we 
see through the lucid current of his language the beds 
of gold over which it flowed. As one star differeth 
from another in glory, we may admit without injustice 
to their fame, that the different revolutionary worthies 
possessed, each in a higher degree than the rest, 
some peculiar excellence ; and it will probably be 
noted hereafter, as the distinctive merit of Jefferson, 
that, next to Franklin, he was the most philosophical 
statesman of this illustrious group. This quality has, 
in fact, been assigned him by the general consent of 
his enemies as well as his friends ; the former having 
commonly reproached him with a too strong inclina- 
tion to act upon abstract theories, which is only an un- 
favorable form of stating the same trait of character. 
The truth is, that a little philosophy, as Voltaire said 
in reference to Frederic the Great, does no harm 
even in business. Plato, we know, affirmed that the 
world would never be well governed, until kings be- 
came philosophers, or philosophers were made kings. 
The most important act in the life of Mr. Jefferson, 
was, as I have already intimated, the part he took 
8 



58 

in bringing about the Declaration of Independence. 
It was his fortune to connect his name with this event 
in a very particular way, by being called upon to write 
the document which published it to the world. It is 
no doubt true, that the substance of such a paper is 
given by the occasion, and that the mere merit of 
clothing it, however fitly, in words, is one of a com- 
paratively inferior order ; but it is one of those merits 
of inferior order which contribute materially towards 
bringing into public notice other and loftier ones. 
The patriotism, energy and substantial talent of Mr. 
Jefferson were much higher qualities than his skill 
in composition ; but this latter talent (the one that 
probably marked him out as the chairman of the 
committee,) gave him, on this great occasion, a place 
apart, and, in some degree, more conspicuous than 
that of any other member of Congress, which will 
constitute forever a singular title of honor. The 
propriety with which the paper is drawn fully jus- 
tified the choice of the writer. It is wholly free 
from the noisy flourish which a vulgar pen would 
have run into at once. It commences with a simple 
statement of a few incontestable general principles, 
proceeds to recapitulate in plain language the wrongs 
of the colonies, and ends with a firm declaration of 
the great fact which it was intended to announce. 
The form of the paper is therefore, as it was highly 
important that it should be, perfectly suited to the 
substance. But it is not in the choice of words, or 



59 

the texture of phrases, that we are to look for the real 
essence of this unique document. Its true value lies 
in that it is the written contemporary record of the 
event which it published, and which, according to a 
high European authority already alluded to, ' open- 
ed a new era in the history of the world.' As this 
era advances, and as the importance of it is more and 
more distinctly perceived, the circumstances that 
marked its commencement will become constantly 
more and more interesting, If our hopes are realiz- 
ed, the Declaration of Independence will be acknow- 
ledged hereafter as the GREAT CHARTER OF 
HUMAN LIBERTY AND HAPPINESS. To have 
been called to write such a paper was a piece of good 
fortune, which could only have happened to a truly 
great man, and it is one which a truly good man 
need not be ashamed to envy. 

While the war lasted, Mr. Jefferson was constantly 
employed in the most important duties. He appears 
to have preferred such as required his presence in 
the country, and is understood to have refused a 
foreign mission; but when Dr. Franklin returned 
from France, after the peace, Mr. Jefferson consented 
to take his place. The occupations of our diplomatic 
agents were now less urgent and complicated than 
they had been, and left them more at leisure for the 
observation of passing events, and for miscellaneous 
pursuits and studies. The philosophical habits of 
Mr. Jefferson enabled him to employ with great 



60 

profit the time which he passed at Paris, in extend- 
ing his knowledge and cultivating his taste. It has 
been thought by some, that his views on speculative 
subjects were unfavorably modified by the effect of 
his association with the literary men of the continent 
of Europe ; but I am not aware that there is any 
foundation for this suspicion. The liberal notions on 
almost all important subjects, which appear in his 
Notes on Virginia, a work published before he went 
to Europe, as they could not well be improved, do 
not appear to have been changed for the worse. He 
has been charged with irreligion ; but this wanton 
calumny was a mere repetition of the base and cow- 
ardly attacks that have been resorted to so often in 
all ages, in order to shake the reputation of the best 
and most religious men. It was known that Mr. 
Jefferson sympathized warmly in the early movements 
of the French Revolution, and, as some of the phi- 
losophers and statesmen who were engaged in them 
professed a loose doctrine on religious and moral 
subjects, Mr. Jefferson's enemies made no scruple, 
though without a shadow of evidence, of imputing to 
him all their errors. This artifice is too gross to 
deceive any person of discernment, and is not very 
creditable to the generosity of those who resorted to 
it. Mr. Jefferson's irreligion was of the same sort 
with that for which Socrates drank the hemlock and 
the Christian martyrs perished at the stake. Like 
them, instead of being justly obnoxious to the charge 



61 



of impiety, he was one of the most sincerely religious 
men in the community. Many of his published let- 
ters, and particularly one to a member of the Society 
of Friends, which has been often reprinted, breathe 
on this subject a most amiable and truly pious spirit, 
which cannot have been affected, for there are 
certain tones that can only come from the heart, and 
which no dissembler, however cunning, can imitate. 
His views of the French Revolution were consid- 
ered by many as too favorable, and he has been 
accused of acting under French influence ; but on this 
subject I have already dwelt at length. Far from 
acting under French influence, he was himself, as I 
have said, one of the principal channels through 
which the people of this country exercised upon 
France and the rest of Europe that American influ- 
ence which is changing so rapidly the political aspect 
of the old world. Mr. Jefferson's views of the 
French Revolution were the same with those of a 
great majority of the people of the United States, 
and contributed very much to give him the immense 
popularity which first raised and then re-elected him 
to the Presidentship, sustained him in so remarkable 
a way through the whole course of his administration, 
and continued to attend him up to the close of his 
life. The Presidentship of Mr. Jefferson fell on times 
as easy and tranquil as those immediately preceding 
them had been stormy and difficult. Our foreign 
relations had assumed a favorable aspect, in conse- 



62 

quence of the turn of affairs in Europe. The bitter- 
ness of party feeling gradually subsided under the 
influence of the great and growing popularity of the 
government. Industry and commerce flourished be- 
yond all former precedent, and these eight years will 
always be regarded as one of the most brilliant periods 
in the history of the country, as they also were one of 
the most agreeable and prosperous in the life of Mr. 
Jefferson. At the end of his second term he finally 
closed his public career, by declining to be consider- 
ed as a candidate for re-election, and thus crowned 
his long course of service to his country by an act 
which gave another beautiful proof of the truly philo- 
sophical temper of his mind. Whether this act was 
as advantageous to the country as it was creditable 
to himself, may well be questioned. He was still in 
the vigor of his faculties, and, as the event has prov- 
ed, might have served the people with constantly 
increasing usefulness for two or three more terms. 

The life of Mr. Jefferson, after he retired from 
office, was not less happy, and hardly less useful to 
the nation, although more quiet than the preceding 
portion. He returned with new ardor to his favorite 
studies, which occupied in the most agreeable man- 
ner a considerable part of his leisure. His house was 
habitually frequented by guests of the highest respect- 
ability and intelligence. No foreigner of note visited 
the country without paying his respects at Monticello, 
and he became to his countrymen a sort of political 



63 

oracle, which was resorted to on all doubtful and im- 
portant occasions. The prejudices that had been 
felt against him in times of warm party dissension 
gradually subsided. They were wholly unknown to 
the rising generation, and were nearly or quite for- 
gotten by those who once cherished them with vio- 
lence. For years before his death, he was in ha- 
bitual and friendly correspondence with President 
Adams ; and the letters they exchanged, many of 
which have been published, exhibit an amiable phi- 
losophy, and a generous forgetfulness on either side 
of their temporary differences, in the highest degree 
creditable to the character of both. On several 
occasions Mr. Jefferson, even in retirement, exercis- 
ed a beneficial influence on the progress of public 
affairs. When the British commander-in-chief, with 
a wanton and insolent contempt of common humanity 
and public law, burned the national buildings at 
Washington, and with them the library, Mr. Jeffer- 
son came forward in the midst of the momentary 
consternation excited by this shameless proceeding, 
and revived the spirits of his countrymen by remind- 
ing them, that it was only a century and a half since 
the Dutch had burned the British fleet at Chatham. 
He also placed at their disposal his own collection of 
books, a much larger and better one than the other, 
and thus laid the foundation of a new public institu- 
tion, which, if properly sustained, will one day be an 
ornament to the country. During his last years he 



64 

was much occupied, in conjunction with his friend 
and political associate, Mr. Madison, in establishing 
the University of Virginia. The service which he 
rendered to his native state and county, by his labor 
in promoting this single object, would entitle him, 
independently of all his other merits, to the lasting 
veneration aud gratitude of the people. His conver- 
sation is said to have been in the highest degree rich, 
various and instructive, and his mode of entertaining 
his friends at once cordial and unceremonious. Every 
one was charmed with his unaffected affability, and 
left him with new respect for his character and tal- 
ents. His manner through life was plain and easy 
rather than elegant, being the natural unstudied ex- 
pression of good feelings and powerful thoughts. His 
correspondence, which often found its way into the 
newspapers, presented a beautiful image of a mind 
at peace with itself and the world, full of charity 
for others, and actively bent on promoting the gene- 
ral good, looking backward with honest satisfaction on 
a well -spent life, and forward with cheerful resigna- 
tion to its close. I have often thought and remarked, 
that the history of man does not offer, in any of its 
proudest passages, a spectacle more honorable to our 
nature, than the old age of these our revolutionary 
fathers. This charming picture, which appeared be- 
fore too complete to admit of improvement, finally 
received a new, and, as it were, a supernatural finish 
in the almost miraculous coincidence that marked the 



65 

close of their lives, and which will hardly in future 
be surpassed or equalled. 

Compare, now, fellow-citizens, the splendid tal- 
ents, the sublime and simple virtues, the ardent and 
unwearied devotion to the public, the noble disinter- 
estedness, the blameless youth, the divine old age of 
these men, with what we know of the statesmen and 
warriors of modern Europe at their best estate, and 
say whether there be not something in the nature of 
democratic institutions, that seems to favor specifi- 
cally the growth of public virtue. I know that great 
and good minds are formed, from time to time, under 
all governments and in every part of the world, and 
that the continent from which our fathers proceeded 
was never barren of these celestial fruits. But, in 
arbitrary governments, they appear like exotics, — and 
we look in vain through the history of absolute mon- 
archies, even at their brilliant moments, for the tra- 
ces of a principle that favors the formation of such 
characters. The heroes of the great Corneille were 
the only specimens of Greek and Roman virtue to be 
found at the court of Louis XIV. The ante-cham- 
bers of Napoleon were not crowded with Dewitts and 
Scipios. It is, in fact, established by Montesquieu, as 
an axiom in political science, that public virtue is the 
natural product and essential principle of popular 
government. This theory appears to be confirmed 
by the experience of all ages, — and no period has 
ever exhibited a more striking illustration of its truth, 
9 



66 

than is given in the glorious company of our revolu- 
tionary patriots. The examples they have left us 
will surely not be lost on their posterity, and the in- 
stitutions which they founded and bequeathed to us, 
based as they are on the solid rock of Dr-mocracij, 
and imbued in every part with its living spirit, will 
remain, a fruitful and perpetual source of virtues like 
their own. 

But why, fellow-citizens and friends, should I de- 
tain you longer in defending a character which error 
and prejudice alone could have undertaken to call in 
question, — which the enlightened public sentiment of 
Europe and America classes with those of the great 
benefactors of the human race ? Let us advert for a 
moment, in conclusion, to the auspicious circumstan- 
ces under which we are this day assembled. This 
is the Sixtieth Anniversary of the great and good 
day which we meet to commemorate. Jt is marked 
by a circumstance of more than ordinary interest. 
The law provides that, on the Fourth of July next 
following the admission of a new State into the Con- 
federacy, a new star shall lie emblazoned, as its rep- 
resentative and symbol, on the national banner, — the 
number of the stripes remaining, permanently the 
same as it originally was, to indicate the number of 
States of which the Union was at first composed. 
During the session of Congress which this day termi- 
nates, two new States, Michigan and Arkansas, have 
been admitted into the Union. To-day, fellow-citi- 



67 

zens, two new stars appear at once upon the national 
flag. It is the first time in our history, when two 
States have been admitted during the same year. 
The addition of these two States increases the whole 
number to twenty-six. The original number was 
thirteen. To-day, then, fellow-citizens, our national 
flag, — the glorious star-spangled banner of the Union, 
— indicates, for the first time, that the number of the 
States has been doubled since the ever memorable 
Fourth of July, 1776. 

Glorious result ! — Oh, could those true-hearted, 
noble-minded men, who on that day of trial pledged 
and put at imminent hazard their lives, their fortunes, 
and — dearer far — their sacred honor, on the issue of 
the quarrel upon which they were entering, have an- 
ticipated all that we now witness, with what new 
alacrity would they not have rushed forward upon 
their dangerous course ! But then how much less 
would have been their merit ! — At that time clouds 
and darkness veiled the prospect. Thirteen infant 
colonies, unprepared, unaided, were about to contend 
single-handed with the Mistress of the Ocean. Who 
could prophesy the issue ? For the leading patriots 
confiscation, exile, perhaps an ignominious death — 
were to be the consequences of failure. ' Unshaken, 
unseduced, unterrified,' — in the consciousness of up- 
right intentions, — in the stern indignation of oppressed 
freedom, — full of faith in God and of love to their 
country, — they marched up resolutely, boldly, un- 



68 

shrinkingly to the mark. Behold now the fruits ! 
Sixty years have elapsed, and to-day, fellow-citizens, 
twenty-six confederated states, in the full enjoyment 
of exuberant prosperity, — acknowledged, respected, 
— may I not say, feared and loved ? — feared by the 
partisans of Despotism, beloved by the friends of 
Improvement and Liberty, — but acknowledged and 
respected by all, as one of the leading powers of the 
Christian world, — commemorate the great act of the 
day we celebrate, as the source, under Providence, 
of all these blessings, — of our national existence. 

To-day, then, fellow-citizens, — permit me to dwell 
for a moment upon the grateful theme, — to-day, for 
the first time, the national banner indicates that two 
new States have been added this year to the Union, 
and that the number of the States has been doubled 
since the Fourth of July, 1776. Remark, too, my 
friends, that these accessions to the national family 
are no puny race, — no mere imaginary creation, like 
the groups of ephemeral kingdoms and republics, that 
are sometimes created at a congress of sovereigns in 
Europe, only to be swept away again into nothing by 
the next political hurricane. Our new States are as 
vigorous in substance as they have been rapid in 
progress. ' How goodly are thy tents, Jacob ! — 
thy tabernacles, Israel ! Like valleys are they 
spread forth, as gardens by the river-side, — like the 
trees of lign aloes which the Lord hath planted, — 
like the cedar trees beside the waters.' They skirt 



69 

the shores of your chain of inland seas : they cover 
the banks of your mighty western rivers: they spring 
spontaneously into being in the depths of your vast 
primeval forests, on the bosoms of your boundless sa- 
vannas. No puny race, did I say ? — Already many 
of them surpass in power and wealth, and that gene- 
rous zeal for intellectual, moral and material im- 
provement, which promises still greater things here- 
after, the oldest and proudest members of the family. 
Who stands forth boldly in her giant youth as the 
champion of the whole interior, but Ohio ? Who sits 
like a queen at the entrance of your western waters, 
already rivalling in art and taste and wealth her 
brilliant parent in the old world, but Louisiana ? Let 
me have the satisfaction of repeating the names of 
the new States in geographical order. Methinks I see 
them pass before me, a charming sisterhood. Ver- 
mont, enthroned in simple beauty on her green moun- 
tains ; — Maine — a nymph of the ocean, but guard- 
ing with jealous care her rich interior domains from 
the grasp of her mighty neighbor : she acknowledges 
no highlands in the bed of the river St. John's ; — 
Ohio — Indiana — Illinois — flourishing, thanks to your 
provident care, far-sighted Dane ! in the sunshine of 
unclouded liberty ; — Kentucky, — generous Kentucky, 
— less fortunate, in this respect, than her neighbors, 
but rich in all the bounties of Providence, rich in 
men, the venerated mother of the west ; — Tennessee, 
ennobled as the residence of the Hero of New Or- 



70 

leans ; — Alabama — Mississippi — Louisiana — spoiled 
children of fortune ! who can estimate your wealth ? 
Missouri — ah, Missouri! your birth was well nigh 
fatal to your parent, but she loves you not the less. 
Last in order, fellow-citizens, our young and grace- 
ful sisters, Michigan, a Northern Dryad, and Arkan- 
sas, reposing in her flowery prairies, upon the banks 
of the Red River. Around, — behind, — another group 
as fair as these, are pressing into being — 

c Future sons and daughters, yet unborn. 



In crowding ranks on every side arise, 
Demanding life, impatient for the skies.' 

Wisconsin, — Florida, — Huron, — and a host of others 
that will find their places in the vast expanse of the 
western valley of the Mississippi, — on the crest of 
the Rocky Mountains, — on the shores of the Colum- 
bia River, and the Pacific Ocean ; — for there, and 
there only, will the far West at length find its limit. 
Beautiful, brilliant group ! — New England and 
Virginia, — the Empire and the Key-stone States, 
with their neighbors, — and you, gallant though some- 
times mistaken Carolina ! with your southern sisters, 
proud and justly so as you all are of your respective 
treasures, your commercial and literary emporiums, 
— your Monticellos and Mount Vernons, — your Ben- 
ningtons, Lexingtons and Bunker Hills, — you may 
well be prouder still of such a train of companions. 
Is there any one among your sons poor-spirited 
enough to look with jealousy upon their rising great- 



71 

ness ? Shall we envy the felicity of our own off- 
spring ? — Fellow-citizens, they are of us, — they have 
gone out from among us. Our rocky hills and fertile 
valleys were the home of their fathers, the loved 
haunts of their childhood and youth. From the 
bosom of the South and West their hearts constantly 
return thither. Harvard and Yale are their Oxford 
and Cambridge : Bunker-Hill is their Marathon. 
They are with us in spirit on our great days of na- 
tional jubilee, — the 22d of December, the 19th of 
April, the 17th of June, the 4th of July. Fellow- 
citizens, they are with us now. Methinks I feel their 
viewless presence. Welcome, noble spirits ! sons of 
common sires ! children of the same family ! We re- 
ceive with pleasure — with gratitude — your generous 
sympathy. Carry back to your western paradise the 
assurance of our warmest wishes for your welfare 
and greatness. Perish the tongue that would utter 
a word to your dishonor ! Palsied be the arm that 
would aim a blow at your prosperity ! 

This creation of new States, fellow-citizens, is the 
crowning glory of our system. It has been said, by 
an eminent European writer, that the idea of a rep- 
resentative Republic, as exemplified in this country, 
is the most brilliant discovery of modern times. In 
this remark there is much truth. The notion of rep- 
resentation dawned so faintly upon the vision of the 
ancient lawgivers, and even comparatively those of 
modern Europe, that its first clear and full develop- 



72 

ment in the constitutions of the United States may 
well be looked upon as a discovery. But this spon- 
taneous formation of sovereign States as co-ordinate 
members of a pre-existing confederacy, is something 
of a still more novel character. Greece scattered her 
colonies upon every shore, but she left them unpro- 
tected as the ostrich lays her eggs upon the sand. — 
Rome swallowed up successively all the other states 
of the ancient world in the whirlpool of her own 
mammoth city, but she destroyed their independence 
and distributed their territories as spoils to her con- 
quering generals, whose broad lands, in the expres- 
sive language of Pliny, were the ruin of Italy. Lati- 
f undia perdere Itdtiam. But this domestic manufac- 
ture of new nations is a phenomenon of which there 
is no anticipation in ancient or modern history. It 
is by far the most important and interesting feature 
in the progress of our national development. Euro- 
pean travellers sometimes tell us that they cannot 
understand our system, and make this a reason for 
attacking it. Fellow-citizens, let them count the 
stars in our flag ! let them cast their eyes upon the 
map ! 

This day, fellow-citizens, completes the sixtieth 
year of our national existence. No period, perhaps, 
of equal length, in the history of the Christian world, 
has been marked with a greater number of important 
events. Wars have become almost habitual. Revo- 
lutions in government have been the order of the 



73 

day. In the general result, the political aspect of 
the Christian world, as respects the relative power of 
states and empires, has been wholly changed. Before 
this period, France had been commonly the ruling 
Christian state. The neighboring nations, such as Aus- 
tria, Prussia, Spain, sometimes contested her ascen- 
dancy, but the sceptre, in the main, departed not from 
Judah. Her Charlemagnes, her Philips, her Henrys, 
her Richelieus, her Louises gave the law successive- 
ly in their times, and in their different ways, through- 
out Europe. Russia was still foreign to the system : 
England was an offset from the French stock, and 
had not yet become a first-rate power. America was 
a distant insignificant colony. This day, sixty years 
ago, your fathers declared independence, and a new 
era commenced in the history of the civilized world. 
To trace its progress would require a library : its re- 
sults are before us. Austria, Prussia, France, Spain, 
have lost their comparative importance. The theatre 
is enlarged. Russia, Great-Britain, the United 
States now stand forward as the leading powers. In 
Russia the far-seeing eye recognizes even now the 
future mistress of Europe. Her right flank resting 
on the North Pole, and her left on the deserts of 
Tartary and Turkey, she advances with giant steps 
from her inaccessible and impregnable seats in the 
boundless regions of Asia and north-eastern Europe 
to the conquest of the West. Nothing can arrest her 
progress. Twice already, within the last thirty 
10 



74 

years, have her Cossacks pitched their tents in the 
Elysian fields of the capital of France. Turkey and 
Poland, the natural bulwarks of the West against her 
inroads, have been left to her mercy. The western 
nations, distracted by internal dissensions, are inca- 
pable of offering any effectual resistance, and have 
ceased to meditate it. England herself, though now, 
as the head of an immense colonial empire, one of the 
leading powers of the world, as the influence of Rus- 
sia advances and her own colonies successively fall 
off, must lose her preponderance, and sink into a 
secondary sphere. 

With the decline of the British power and the pro- 
gress of that of Russia, the principle of Despotism 
will obtain, temporarily, at least, the ascendancy in 
Europe. Upon us, fellow-citizens, will devolve, in 
consequence, the honor and the duty of sustaining 
the cause of free institutions. Hear in what a noble 
burst of poetry the lamented Byron describes your 
position, as contrasted with that of the once free states 
of the old world ! 

1 The name of Commonwealth is past and gone 
O'er the three fractions of the groaning glohe ; 

Venice is crushed, and Holland deigns to own 
A sceptre, and endures the purple robe. 

If the free Switzer yet bestrides alone 

His chainless mountains, 'tis but for a time ; 

For tyranny, of late, is cunning grown, 

And in its own good season tramples down 

The sparkles of our ashes. One great clime. 



75 



Whose vigorous offspring, by dividing ocean, 

Are kept apart, and nursed in the devotion 

Of Freedom, which their fathers fought for and 

Bequeathed, — a heritage of heart and hand, 

And proud distinction from each other land, 

Whose sons must bow them at a monarch's motion. 

As if his senseless sceptre were a wand 

Full of the magic of exploded science, — 

Still one great clime, in full and free defiance, 

Yet rears her crest, unconquered and sublime. 

Above the far Atlantic ! She has taught 

Her Esau-brethren, that the haughty flag, 

The floating fence of Albion's feebler crag, 

May strike to those, whose red right hands have bought 

Rights cheaply earned with blood. Still, still forever, 

Better, though each man's life-blood were a river, 

That it should flow and overflow, than creep 

Through thousand lazy channels in our veins. 

Dammed, like the dull canal, with locks and chains, 

And moving, as a sick man in his sleep, 

Three paces, and then faltering; — better be 

Where the extinguished Spartans still are free — 

In their proud charnel at Thermopylae — 

Than stagnate in our marsh, — or o'er the deep 

Fly, and one current to the ocean add — 

One spirit to the souls our fathers had — 

One freeman more, America, to thee ! ' 

Glorious eulogy ! Fellow-citizens, shall America 
fail to justify it ? Shall the time ever come, when 
this anniversary shall cease to be a day of jubilee, — 
when the star-spangled banner shall no longer be the 
standard of Liberty ? No ! — By the memory of 
Washington ! No ! — By the blood of Warren ! 



76 

And you, brilliant stars ! — Michigan ! Arkansas ! 
who to-day, for the first time, beam upon us from 
that sacred banner, may your apparition be auspicious 
to the country ! Long and gloriously may your beau- 
teous orbs revolve in our well-balanced system ! 
May no eccentric influences ever tempt you to shoot 
madly from your spheres ! May the spirits that 
direct your course be ever wise, faithful and true, 
and may a kind Providence bless their efforts ! Love- 
ly Sisters ! New-born Nations ! Welcome ! Thrice 
welcome to the Union ! 






LB D 



LIBRARY OF 



CONGRESS 




011 711 963 4 



